Pages: 1 2 3 4  Next -- Posted by kidd rune at 11:01 pm on June 27, 2009 What is this? The top right is the only REAL person -- the others are just clones with some coloring and a little bit of alteration. Why do they have to lie like this to make their failed point seem true? Discuss - but I don't really give two shits about replying. -- Posted by Aqueous at 11:02 pm on June 27, 2009 "pseudoscience"= bullshit. -- Posted by Charolastra at 11:04 pm on June 27, 2009 Race doesn't exist. It's a social construct, but your unwillingness to respond is probably not unreasonable, seeing as how you can't defend your case either way. People think I'm white, I'm of mixed origin. -- Posted by kidd rune at 11:06 pm on June 27, 2009 Quote: from Charolastra at 2:04 am on June 28, 2009 Race doesn't exist. It's a social construct, but your unwillingness to respond is probably not unreasonable, seeing as how you can't defend your case either way. People think I'm white, I'm of mixed origin. Race does exist, and it's a valid scientific construct. You're just a nihilist. Who gives two shits of others think you're White? What does that mean? I can't defend my case? How? -- Posted by Charolastra at 11:10 pm on June 27, 2009 Seeing as how you said you wouldn't respond, then you just did, it just goes to show you that you have some lame agenda you're trying to push. Science doesn't support your claims so it's ironic you think it's pseudo-science. I'm a nihilist? wth? -- Posted by kidd rune at 11:15 pm on June 27, 2009 Science doesn't support your claims What, you're basing this on the image shown, where I explained it's dishonesty, or you're that delusional? What science? Show me. I'm a nihilist? You can try a dictionary if you must. -- Posted by Finger Paint at 11:18 pm on June 27, 2009 This is ridiculous. Race exists. -- Posted by Charolastra at 11:29 pm on June 27, 2009 I'm well educated enough to know this is true, and I presented an anecdotal example. I'm half asian and half white, and appear whole white to most. There is no scientific basis for the concept of race. And keep the discussion to this topic, no PMs necessary, thanks. -- Posted by kidd rune at 11:37 pm on June 27, 2009 You gave CONJECTURE and you sure as hell don't look White to me. There is no scientific basis? Elaborate. -- Posted by kidd rune at 11:38 pm on June 27, 2009 I can tell the difference between a Negro and White. Race thus exists. -- Posted by kidd rune at 11:42 pm on June 27, 2009 I saw this undeniable proof that race exists 100% but I'm not going to give any more information on it. Believe me or you have an evil agenda. -- Posted by Charolastra at 11:43 pm on June 27, 2009 That's not a scientific definition that you can spot a black person from an asian. The reality of the matter is, science doesn't acknowledge race, at all. Race is only accepted within some given social construct and only because it's culturally relevant. The irish weren't even considered 'white' to most people that were accepted as 'white'. This just goes to show you the dynamic nature of social constructs and definitions. It's pseudo-science to say race exists and point at some lame charts and things. -- Posted by Charolastra at 11:44 pm on June 27, 2009 Quote: from kidd rune at 11:42 pm on June 27, 2009 Believe me or you have an evil agenda. Yeah okay. -- Posted by kidd rune at 11:46 pm on June 27, 2009 The fact that people can't differentiate between you and a White woman doesn't make race scientifically invalid - it just makes you unique or them stupid. The reality of the matter is, science acknowledge race. Race is  accepted genetically and only because it's scientifically relevant. The irish weren't even considered 'White' to most people that were accepted as 'White,' even though they were called "White Niggers" and genetic evidence has shown they are White. It just shows when you socially define race, you contradict science. It's psuedo-science to say race doesn't exist and point at some imaginary studies and pretend you have "Proof" when you have thin air. -- Posted by jakelong at 7:20 pm on June 28, 2009 I know because Scientific american is into "pseudoscience". So are 90% of scientists.   But those who believe in the nordish race and measuring ppl's nose to categorie them by race are great scientists of course lol The reality of the matter is, science acknowledge race. But they also recognize that race is not the kind of monolithic categorization you make it to be. They know that ppl can be grouped differently using different methods. The fact is Sicentific American doesn't say that race doesn't exist but that its not a clear cut set in stone deal. -- Posted by kidd rune at 7:39 pm on June 28, 2009 The Nordish race is more of a collection of races - and I have explained how I don't believe Nordish to be a race anymore. Also, I have never met one man that defines someone's whole race solely by their nose. Scientific American had to lie and create fake images of people on their image. They have an obvious agenda. -- Posted by tell me again at 9:03 pm on June 28, 2009 Pseudoscience sells Ambiguity about race is a fair enough point to make in a magazine, it's not like it's trying to say "no" resolutely. -- Posted by jakelong at 9:43 pm on June 29, 2009 Quote: from kidd rune at 7:39 pm on June 28, 2009 The Nordish race is more of a collection of races - and I have explained how I don't believe Nordish to be a race anymore. Also, I have never met one man that defines someone's whole race solely by their nose. So Paul Newman is 100% white. Scientific American had to lie and create fake images of people on their image. They have an obvious agenda. lol@silly racialist who cant stand to be proven wrong by scientists. It was a QUESTION to show that things aren't as clear cut as you believe. -- Posted by kidd rune at 10:16 pm on June 29, 2009 So Paul Newman is 100% white. No, his nose is not a White trait, but he isn't 100% nonWhite. We even know he's part Jewish. lol@silly racialist who cant stand to be proven wrong by scientists. It was a QUESTION to show that things aren't as clear cut as you believe. Where did I say races are perfectly defined categories with no logical doubts, and are 100% clear cut? If I ever did, I'm sorry - and I don't believe such. The edges of each race are quite fuzzy - but there are obvious facts, such as native Irishmen being a different race as native Brazilians, which are a different race as native Kenyans. -- Posted by jakelong at 11:14 pm on June 29, 2009 Quote: from kidd rune at 10:16 pm on June 29, 2009 No, his nose is not a White trait Can his nose be native american or asian or black? How do you know its Jewish? The edges of each race are quite fuzzy - . If the edges are fuzzy then how are you supposed to seperate races into different countries? How and why should you make the cutoff between them? Any division would be arbirtrary and DECIDED based more on social and visual conventions than on something real. -- Posted by kidd rune at 11:26 pm on June 29, 2009 Can his nose be native american or asian or black? How do you know its Jewish? By the shape. It's a textbook Semitic nose. If the edges are fuzzy then how are you supposed to seperate races into different countries? How and why should you make the cutoff between them? Any division would be arbirtrary and DECIDED based more on social and visual conventions than on something real. The cutoff is somewhat arbitrary, but there are obvious facts. Europeans, Sub-Saharan Africans, and Amerinds are clearly quite different, correct? They evolved in different places, have unique histories, they can be easily distinguished from each other, each has many unique traits, and so on. They are obviously different races. But when you argue whether some groups, such as Ethiopians, are Caucasian or Negroid - then it becomes less clear. That does not, in any way, make race an invalid concept, nor does it suggest that race doesn't exist. It's more of a scientific approach and anthropologists tested as many traits as they could before applying Ethiopians to whichever race they felt - almost always Caucasoid or a mix. -- Posted by jakelong at 11:51 pm on June 29, 2009 Quote: from kidd rune at 11:26 pm on June 29, 2009 By the shape. It's a textbook Semitic nose. Then you are using the nose to define the semitic race? The cutoff is somewhat arbitrary, but there are obvious facts. Those "facts" use extreme example. So you admit that segragating ppl by race is arbitrary? Good so long as we're clear on that. But when you argue whether some groups, such as Ethiopians, are Caucasian or Negroid - then it becomes less clear. But you wouldn't accept them in your white nation anyway. That does not, in any way, make race an invalid concept, nor does it suggest that race doesn't exist. maybe not but its shows that those who DECIDE to segregate ppl based on race are doing because of SOCIAL reason and using SOCIAL methods. It's more of a scientific approach and anthropologists tested as many traits as they could before applying Ethiopians to whichever race they felt - almost always Caucasoid or a mix. How would you SCIENTIFICALLY segregate races if so many people fall between or across categories? -- Posted by Takinam at 7:28 am on June 30, 2009 How do you contradict science when you don't believe in race? I thought we had this discussion before, rune. It does not contradict science not to believe in race at all. There is no single objective piece of evidence that can absolutely prove race exists. And this thread isn't about scientific dishonesty. The pictures aren't meant to be an exact replica of what the mixed future may look like - they are meant just to be what we MAY look like. There is no scientific dishonesty, or even a real attempt at trying to mislead anyone. It is meant to catch the eye; the first page, and that is what it does. You don't like it because you disapprove of mixing peoples in the first place, and this doesn't bode well with that principle. In fact, it contradicts it. You twisting and turning a well-meaning magazine to your own nefariously biased ends is lowly and it doesn't fit you. Scientific American has no provable history "lying", your definition of lies and forgery consist of what you believe, and much of time, what you believe isn't even scientific fact, but instead scientific theory. -- Posted by kidd rune at 9:34 am on June 30, 2009 Then you are using the nose to define the semitic race? No, there are many traits Semites have, but the nose is one of the most noticeable. He has it. Those "facts" use extreme example. So you admit that segragating ppl by race is arbitrary? Good so long as we're clear on that. The racial cutoff is debatable, but groups are obviously different races than others - such as Irish, Zimbabweans, and Koreans. You can't confuse them at all - the natural populations anyway. But you wouldn't accept them in your white nation anyway. Caucasian isn't White. maybe not but its shows that those who DECIDE to segregate ppl based on race are doing because of SOCIAL reason and using SOCIAL methods. Explain. How would you SCIENTIFICALLY segregate races if so many people fall between or across categories? Well we have done so to bird species, yet the same thing happens. How is that so? Why aren't people running around protesting the labels we put on birds? The same is also true with rocks. There is no defining line between what you label a rock - but there are obvious differences between many rocks that make it so you can easily categorize them into different groups. -- Posted by kidd rune at 9:41 am on June 30, 2009 Quote: from Takinam at 10:28 am on June 30, 2009 How do you contradict science when you don't believe in race? I thought we had this discussion before, rune. It does not contradict science not to believe in race at all. There is no single objective piece of evidence that can absolutely prove race exists. And this thread isn't about scientific dishonesty. The pictures aren't meant to be an exact replica of what the mixed future may look like - they are meant just to be what we MAY look like. There is no scientific dishonesty, or even a real attempt at trying to mislead anyone. It is meant to catch the eye; the first page, and that is what it does. You don't like it because you disapprove of mixing peoples in the first place, and this doesn't bode well with that principle. In fact, it contradicts it. You twisting and turning a well-meaning magazine to your own nefariously biased ends is lowly and it doesn't fit you. Scientific American has no provable history "lying", your definition of lies and forgery consist of what you believe, and much of time, what you believe isn't even scientific fact, but instead scientific theory. Actually, Takinam, there is quite a bit of scientific evidence that proves race exists. But you could sit on your chair and when one presents it, say "THAT'S NOT RACE! THEY'RE ALL HUMAN! WAAAAAAH!" Really, you could. Classification of different subspecies of humans is quite possible. Various races have unique geographic location, unique history, unique sets of traits, recognizable genetic division, and numerous traits that are common in one population - and impossible or rare in another. You don't think race exists, because you don't know what race is - and you go by a definition that doesn't apply. The genetic variation between humans is enough, Templeton used fraudulent methods to claim otherwise (See Amadon D, The seventy-five percent rule for subspecies and Hennessy RJ, Stringer CB, Geometric morphometric study of the regional variation of modern human craniofacial form) Really, Takinam, can you give me a reason why they'd make each person in this pic look more like the top right woman than anyone with ancestry of a different race would look (Assuming they're not mixed) -- Posted by jakelong at 1:46 pm on June 30, 2009 Quote: from kidd rune at 9:34 am on June 30, 2009 No, there are many traits Semites have, but the nose is one of the most noticeable. He has it. How can you tell its semitic and not native american? racial cutoff is debatable, but groups are obviously different races than others - such as Irish, Zimbabweans, and Koreans. Again thats using extreme examples. How can you tel that someone from the caucasus is really white or asian? Would you accept this caucasian guy in a "white" nation? If no why not? Caucasian isn't White. So "white" is just a social definition based on skin color and some external features. Otherwise the cutoff between "white" caucasian and "nonwhite" caucasian is not really based on anything scientific. The decisian of the supreme court to declare asian indians as caucasian but not white and therefore to deny them citizenship was PURELY SOCIAL and twistedaround the meaning of caucasian JUST to exclude asian indians. SCIENTIFICALLY asian indians are caucasian. Explain. The segregation is arbitrary. You admitted that. So the segregation is based on a DECISION made on a social basis or a personal preference basis. Well we have done so to bird species, yet the same thing happens. species =/= race Why aren't people running around protesting the labels we put on birds? scientists DO debate the cutoff for some birds. there are obvious differences between many rocks that make it so you can easily categorize them into different groups. rocks =/= people. People have migrated, intermixed, and migrated. The ONLY real reasons there are ANY of the differneces you mention is because people have been seperated by oceans and mountains after the movement of continents and plates. But OTHERWIE they are the SAME SPECIES. There is nothing scientific or genetic which PREVENTS them from making human babies, from regrouping together and living together. The ONLY reason anyone can give to segregate humans are SOCIAL NOT SCIENTIFIC -- Posted by kidd rune at 2:27 pm on June 30, 2009 How can you tell its semitic and not native american? It's a drawing. Again thats using extreme examples. How can you tel that someone from the caucasus is really white or asian? Well if the Caucasus is in Asia, they are most definitely Asian. Now if they're White is dependent on other variables. Would you accept this caucasian guy in a "white" nation? If no why not? I don't know, what does his DNA say? Do you have a better image? So "white" is just a social definition based on skin color and some external features. Otherwise the cutoff between "white" caucasian and "nonwhite" caucasian is not really based on anything scientific. The decisian of the supreme court to declare asian indians as caucasian but not white and therefore to deny them citizenship was PURELY SOCIAL and twistedaround the meaning of caucasian JUST to exclude asian indians. SCIENTIFICALLY asian indians are caucasian. White is a term originally based on skin color, but has become a term to describe the Indo-European Caucasoid groups. People from India are not solely Indo-European Caucasoid groups - thus India is not White. The US and their classification systems are horrible measures of race. The segregation is arbitrary. You admitted that. So the segregation is based on a DECISION made on a social basis or a personal preference basis. ANY classification system is arbitrary. What don't you understand about this simple concept? If we truly wanted, we could consider chimps humans. The fact is - SOME GROUPS are CLEARLY different, racially, from others. Those are the "Extreme examples" you speak of, and they lay the basis for racial classification. The fact that it's not perfect, the labels are human inventions, and the edges are fuzzy does not denote or disprove the existence of human races. species =/= race You seem to ignore any comparison unless it's an exact clone. Different species of bird can mate and have fertile young. If we wanted to, we could label them subspecies and the only thing that would change is the textbooks, Jake. What I'm saying is the titles and classification cutoffs are arbitrary - but the fact that different races exist and people of various ancestries can be grouped, easily, into races is FACT. scientists DO debate the cutoff for some birds. They do. They debate if wolves and dogs are the same species. They have debate races, and they should. It's not perfect and no classification of living organisms ever will be. There will always be some people to claim otherwise. It does not mean that race doesn't exist and is not a valid concept. rocks =/= people. People have migrated, intermixed, and migrated. The ONLY real reasons there are ANY of the differneces you mention is because people have been seperated by oceans and mountains after the movement of continents and plates. But OTHERWIE they are the SAME SPECIES. There is nothing scientific or genetic which PREVENTS them from making human babies, from regrouping together and living together. The ONLY reason anyone can give to segregate humans are SOCIAL NOT SCIENTIFIC I do not wish to segregate humans - but to give the choice to live and mate with only your kind. There's nothing scientific or genetic that PREVENTS different species of bird from mating and having fertile young, is there? Why should we outright lie and say race is nothing? -- Posted by ElephantStone at 2:28 pm on June 30, 2009 "December 2003" answers everything -- Posted by Takinam at 5:13 pm on July 3, 2009 Actually, Takinam, there is quite a bit of scientific evidence that proves race exists. But you could sit on your chair and when one presents it, say "THAT'S NOT RACE! THEY'RE ALL HUMAN! WAAAAAAH!" Really, you could. Classification of different subspecies of humans is quite possible. Various races have unique geographic location, unique history, unique sets of traits, recognizable genetic division, and numerous traits that are common in one population - and impossible or rare in another. You don't think race exists, because you don't know what race is - and you go by a definition that doesn't apply. The genetic variation between humans is enough, Templeton used fraudulent methods to claim otherwise (See Amadon D, The seventy-five percent rule for subspecies and Hennessy RJ, Stringer CB, Geometric morphometric study of the regional variation of modern human craniofacial form)   Really, Takinam, can you give me a reason why they'd make each person in this pic look more like the top right woman than anyone with ancestry of a different race would look (Assuming they're not mixed) Lol. Link me to the objective scientific assertion that stipulates that human genetics completely justify seperation into seperate races. -- Posted by kidd rune at 7:26 pm on July 3, 2009 Lol. Link me to the objective scientific assertion that stipulates that human genetics completely justify seperation into seperate races. http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1424693 Some pics: http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1424693&rendertype=figure&id=FG3 http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1424693&rendertype=figure&id=FG2 You can clearly East Asia, Mongoloids, clustering well together. Then you see Oceania. One point clusters with Mongoloids (They have Mongoloid and Australoid admixture) and one lower, probably more dominantly Caucasoid. Central/South Asia, Middle East, Europe, and North Africa cluster together as Caucasoids. Tow intermediate C/S Asia points in between Cacuasoids and Mongoloids, probably admixture. Africa has it's own cluster. Americas has it's own cluster. Amerinds are often classified with Mongoloids, or sometimes their own branch, Americanoid. http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1424693&rendertype=figure&id=FG4 That pic shows the specific groups. Check this study out: http://www.bioforensics.com/conference07/Racial_Identification/SNP_classifier.pdf "A linear classification method was developed for incorporating these SNPs into a classifier model that was 99, 98, and 100% accurate for identifying individuals of European, African, and Asian descent, respectively" http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1196372 I think it's quite clear how accurate it is. There are numerous other studies, but each of these has successfully separated human populations into races successfully. Pages: 1 2 3 4  Next